Sie sind auf Seite 1von 145

PIIM IS A RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

FACILITY AT THE NEW SCHOOL


2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
68 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10011
THE PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
212 229 6825
piim.newschool.edu
PIIM
Tis work is supported by the Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center (TATRC) at the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel
Command (USAMRMC) through award W81XWH-11-2-0025.
THE VI SUAL DASHBOARD &
HEADS-UP DI SPLAY OF PATI ENT CONDI TI ONS
ASSESSMENT VOLUME
PREPARED FOR:
TELEMEDI CI NE AND ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH CENTER
(TATRC)
DELI VERABLE UNDER AWARD NUMBER:
W81XWH-11-2-0025
REPORT BY:
Anthony Ina
Sayoko Yoshida
Prin Limphongpand
Ann Yi
SeungWon Hur
Damian Bendersky
Noah Pedrini
Jihoon Kang
Christopher Goranson
DATE OF REPORT:
February 15th, 2013
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 6]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
Introduction
Te Assessment Volume documents the comments and
requests received from project stakeholders and clinical
consultants during weekly reviews. Tis document also
includes the action item and results associated with each
comment or request. Tis document helps to clearly
document and communicate requested changes by project
stakeholders and ensure changes are captured and integrated
into the fnal prototype and supporting documentation.
Tis document has been updated each quarter and
represents our current understanding of the project's
requirements.
PIIM thanks the following stakeholders and clinical
consultants who have participated in the design assessments:
TATRC
Betty Levine
Steve Stefensen, MD
Crystal Ferrel

WALTER REED NATI ONAL MI LI TARY MEDI CAL CENTER,
BETHESDA, MD (WRNMMC)
Kevin Dorance, MD
Sean Lynch
Christie Applequist
Cicely Dye, MD
Lauren Tomas, Registered Dietitian
Katie Kirkpatrick, Registered Dietitian
Mina Willis, Pharmacist
PARSONS I NSTI TUTE FOR I NFORMATI ON MAPPI NG (PI I M)
Christopher Goranson, MGIS, GISPPrincipal Investigator
Jihoon Kang, MFACo-principal Investigator
Sayoko Yoshida, MFA
Carol Smyth, MD
Angela Laurio, RN
Anthony Ina
Prin Limphongpand
Ann Yi
SeungWon Hur
Damian Bendersky
Marine Koshkakaryan
Noah Pedrini
William Bevington
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 31]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
III. USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
July 19December 14, 2012
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 32]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
Executive Summary
I NTRODUCTI ON
Te Parsons Institute for Information Mapping (PIIM),
of Te New School received Internal Review Board
approval from Te New School on December 14th, 2011.
On February 17th, 2012, PIIM was notifed that the IRB
protocol in support of this project was determined by the
USAMRMC not to involve research activities in accordance
with 32 CFR 219.102(d).
PIIM conducted internal dry runs with staf to
organize and inform the overall testing efort prior to the
formal testing utilizing subjects. Formal testing began on
July 19, 2012 and concluded on December 14, 2012. By
the conclusion of the usability efort, 10 dry run tests, 20
benchmark tests (used for Time and Path comparisons),
and 24 ofcial interviews had been conducted.
Of the 24 subjects:
t 42% were female, 58% were male;
t 58% were between the ages of 3145;
t 75% had a 4-Year College Degree (BA, BS)
or higher;
t 83% spoke English as a frst language;
t 100% used Web Browsers, 95% used Ofce
Applications, and 71% used Creative Applications;
t 83% used the computer daily at school or work;
t 88% used the computer daily at home;
t 96% had not used a sofware package to track
health-related information.
A known limitation of our study as indicated by the
subject demographics was that the population from which
the subjects came from was a university campus. Clearly,
there are diferences in the level of education and general
population of active duty military personnel. Subsequent
usability testing should take this into account; and future
usability studies are planned that should provide better
insight into this key diference.
STUDY DESI GN METHODOLOGY
Te usability testing was broken into four groups of
six testers. Te idea was that as the subjects identifed
usability constraints with the prototype, the application
could be redesigned and reprogrammed thereby providing
a second opportunity to assess not only the efectiveness
of the original design but the efectiveness of the revi-
sion. Te subjects were recruited in four groups of six:
Group 1A, Group 1B, Group 2A, and Group 2B. Since
the HealthBoard prototype included both a patient and
a provider portal, the subjects were given personas that
were modeled afer anticipated user workfows. Since the
test was to be conducted over a 45-minute duration, it was
more efective for evaluation and for the subjects to divide
up the functionality of the HealthBoard prototype across
diferent groups.
Overall, the iterative redesign of the HealthBoard
prototype based on initial feedback led to notable im-
provement in the completion of tasks between testing
groups. Of the initial 30 identifed tasks, 18 of them were
improved, and an additional 6 tasks were fagged for
requiring further redesign beyond the redesigns conduct-
ed during the usability testing.
RESULTS
For analysis, PIIM conducted both qualitative and quanti-
tative data. Data provided the backbone for understanding
fundamental faws in the original design, while the quali-
tative data helped inform what subjects felt or thought
about the application. Using a sofware package called
Morae, PIIM calculated a number of task-based metrics
including Successful Completion, Task Time: Benchmark
Time, Task Path: Benchmark Path, and Error Rate were
recorded. Testers were also given scorecards following
each task to rate Task Complexity, Visual Design, and Overall
Appeal. Tese scorecards provided PIIM with better insight
into overall user satisfaction. Tasks were judged as
improved based if more than one metric were identifed
as improving from one round of testing to another.
Overall, subjects responded favorably to the useful-
ness of HealthBoard on average -58%, or 14 of 24 subjects
stated that they would be at least somewhat likely to use
HealthBoard if made available to them. Subjects cited
the most common reason as being the convenience of
one-stop shopping; other comments included identify-
ing HealthBoard as an all in one sofware on health and
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 33]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
food! and provided ease of communicating with health
provider. Furthermore, 63% (15 of 24) rated the applica-
tion as at least somewhat easy to use. Considering that
these surveys were conducted afer subjects had on
average less than an one-hour to work with the prototype,
we believe that this bodes well for dashboard-based
personal health systems.
Te dark color scheme and contrast had been identifed
prior to the testing as something that some subjects might
have a strong opinion about. On occasion prior to the
testing, some reviewers from the Military Health System
had refected on feedback they had received on a similarly-
skinned system JANUS. Based on the usability testing
however, this criticism wasn't uniformly noted by subjects.
A few subjects identifed the color scheme as being rather
soothingdark color scheme is comfortingnot clinical
or I like the color scheme; its very neutral and adjusted to
my eyes. One subject commented the color scheme is OK.
It will be nice to have option. Te color scheme seemed
fne. Others did express that they would prefer brighter
colors, not as monochromatic or the color of screen is a
little too dark. It will be better if it's lighter. Based on
further observation and subject comments it became
evident that the experience and visual design may beneft
overall from being more friendly and approachable. One
tester commented it does look slick, but it does not look
friendly. Another said if I could change the color, it will
make it a little more friendly. Yet another mentioned:
Too much graylooks like a tombstone (laughs).
Tese comments generally confrmed that the impor-
tance of providing the user with customizable options.
While some users indicated indiference about the colors
used for the prototype, providing an option for those who
would prefer some level of control over the appearance
would likely satisfy those who would have preferred
lighter backgrounds or colors used in the application. Te
HealthBoard prototype has now incorporated an alternate
color scheme which could be further enhanced depending
on where HealthBoard might be used.
HealthBoard has two diferent homescreen views: a
simplifed button view and a dashboard view which
contains key data points from each module. Te majority
of subjects preferred the button view, saying things like
[the button view is] a little less cluttered, I think. Another
subject said the widget view is a bit overwhelming. I like
button view better. [In widget view,] there are a lot of things
on the screen. I'd like to just focus on things. I prefer
button view. Afer completing the task to change button
view to widget view, PIIM even observed some testers
revert to back button view.
PIIM invested signifcant time and resource into
developing a Next Steps feature. Te next-step feature
provides recommendations from the patient's provider
team, such as Schedule Tetanus vaccination. Initially,
this information was contained in the Medical Records
module, and subjects scored a 83% successful completion
rate when attempting the task. PIIM made an efort to
promote the feature to the homescreen, hoping to drive
100% successful completion. Unfortunately, the change
that was made put the feature in a blind spot of the user
interface, and subjects only scored a 33% successful
completion. When asked what was most challenging, one
tester commented it was to fnd the Next Steps informa-
tion. Another tester commented: Looking [for] a history
of Next Steps. Not sure what Next Steps meant. Te term
itself appeared to cause confusion. Since the term may also
be associated by some with advance directives, meaning the
protocol for a person's end-of-life care, we believe that an
alternate phrase is probably more appropriate. Te ease of
access to the information held in such a summary screen
does however provide a great opportunity for communi-
cating important information to patients.
Te Exercise Module had an aggregate success rate of
71%, compared to the median module score of 81%. One
contributing factor could be the Physical Readiness Test,
with which civilians are unfamiliar. Another could be the
several diferent types of exercise: Personal Readiness Tests,
Physician Assigned, and Personal. Perhaps only having
Physical Readiness Test and Other Exercises would simplify
the module.
Finally, the interactive trackers in the Vital Signs
occasionally caused problems for subjects. PIIM believes
this could be a powerful tool to empower behavior change
through information. In our task the subject was instructed
to create a tracker for the number of cigarettes smoked.
Despite attempted fxes, the task's success rate sunk to
50%. It seems testers do not associate the Vital Signs
module, perhaps taxonomically, with custom trackers or
understood their intended function. An opportunity may
exist to merge Trackers with Next Steps.
OTHER OBSERVATI ONS
Improving HealthBoard's nonverbal communication
might also help with engagement. Te intention behind
having functionality like Trackers and Next Steps is to
empower behavior change through information. Te ease
of access of such information may also encourage use and
adoption of the application. Some companies have within
the past few years developed devices (pedometers, scales,
bracelets) where the information is automatically trans-
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 34]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
mitted to a reporting application (Nike Fuel, Fitbit, Basis,
and Withings Wi-Fi Body Scale are a few examples).
On a high level, the user experience should be prioritized
according to communication, second data acquisition, then
fnally data retrieval. Te modules as currently organized
are highly segmented and separated. Comments can be
made in multiple modules but no single place exists to
engage with comments. Creating a single, designated place
for interacting with health care providers in relation to
data (not just Messages) could improve efectiveness. One
way of doing this could be the introduction of something
like the Health Focus block from the Provider Portal into
the Patient Portal.
FUTURE USABI LI TY EFFORTS
Te testing environment was identifed as being overall
important to the process. Distractions in the room,
including multiple moderators, equipment and other
items tended to complicate things for subjects. Removing
as much of these factors possible would likely decrease any
anxiety experienced by the subject. While subjects were
ofered food and beverages, the addition of light music
to the environment might also lead to a more pleasurable
environment.
In processing the data, Hint Count is one metric that
would have been a useful indicator, perhaps even more
so than Error Rate, would have. A hint is defned as any
additional information, outside the task, dispensed by the
moderator. Tis could be a good metric in determining
problem areas.
Recruitment proved more difcult and time consuming
than originally anticipated. Multiple no-shows complicated
matters, and the incentive (a $10 Metrocard) may not
have been enough to adequately encourage participation.
Formative testing may lead future tests away from design
changes that negatively impact the usability scores before
they are deployed in a formal testing environment. Te
usability testing confrmed for us that HealthBoard could
be an efective way in ultimately improving the likelihood
of patients recording and interacting with their personal
health information.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 35]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
RECRUI TMENT
Following our IRB-approved protocol, PIIM recruited 24
subjects for testing using posters in and around Te New
School University (see Figure 1a and 1b). Respondents
took a tear away containing a link to the studys website
(http://piim.newschool.edu/ulab).
On the ULab website (Figure 1c), interested
parties reviewed additional details, agreed to an informed
consent statement, and then completed a Pre-Screener
Survey to participate. PIIM then corresponded with the
respondents via e-mail to schedule appointments.
Methods
Figure 1a: ULab Poster
Figure 1b: ULab Distribution
Figure 1c: ULab Website
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 36]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
TESTI NG STRUCTURE
Subjects were divided into four groups of six: Group 1A,
Group 1B, Group 2A, and Group 2B (see Figure 2).
Group A represented the testers, and Group B represented
the validators. HealthBoards breadth made it difcult to
test the full prototype in a single 45-minute session, plus
these groupings related directly to the schedule of our
engineering efort.
t Groups 1 and 2 tested diferent sets of modules.
t Group 1 tested Setting (e.g. Change Password,
Edit Profle), Medications, Appointments, Messages,
Immunizations and Medical Records.
t Group 2 tested Vital Signs, Exercise, Nutrition
and Educational Resources.


Figure 2: Test Structure
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 37]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
TASK CREATI ON
Te process of creating tasks began by creating a catalogue
of available actions from the Design Volume, Product
Requirements Document, and inspection of the prototype
(see Figure 2a).
Once all tasks were catalogued they were broken
down into a more manageable set. First, we removed
similar tasks with diferent contexts; For example, make
a comment in Exercise versus Vital Signs. Next, tasks were
prioritized by perceived task importance. Te team viewed
it as more important to report taking a medication, and
less important to be able to switch your homepage view.
Figure 2a: Cataloguing Tasks (Sample)
Once candidates were determined, tasks were written
into a narrative form (see Figure 2b).
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 38]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
Since tasks were organized by importance,
creating context between tasks helps to
stitch tasks together for the subject. Te
alternative would have been a series of
cold, disjointed and unrelated tasks.
When a candidate set of tasks was ready,
PIIM ran a series of 24 internal dry run
tests with our network of contacts in Te
New School University. Tis exercise allowed
us to refne the test time by eliminating tasks
and tweaking the language to be more
comprehensible. Tose participating in the
dry-run tests went through the same protocol
as the subjects.
Figure 2b: Task Narrative
Figure 2c: Remove Task
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 39]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
FI NAL TASK SETS
Below are the tasks for Group 1 (A and Btask sets were frozen once testing commenced).
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 40]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
Below are the tasks for Group 2.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 41]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
TASK ADMI NI STRATI ON
Upon arrival, subjects are welcomed and
ofered refreshment, then provided an
Informed Consent form to sign. Tey are
also provided a Statement to Subject docu-
ment and a Confdentiality document to
initial (see Appendix 3). Subjects are then
taken to the lab, where the Moderator provided
information and instructions based on the
Moderator Script (Appendix 4). Subjects
were provided a persona for reference, each
containing a HealthBoard login (Figure 3).
Personas are informational only and meant
to provide a reference for test participants.
Once the test began, tasks were read from
a task card (Figure 4), told frmly to begin,
and the task card was placed in the subjects
view. Subjects were told to do the task as
quickly and accurately as possible and
not to do anything more than was required
in the task.
When fnished with the task, the subject
would announce done, and then was
administered a scorecard (see Figure 5).
Tasks are then rated on a scale of 1 to 7
(1 being positive, 7 being negative) for
Complexity, Visual Design, and Overall Appeal.
Once the scorecard is complete, it is
fipped over and the next task is begun.
Afer all tasks are complete, the moderator
asks two follow-up questions:
1. Any general impressions you want
to share before we wrap up?
2. How did you feel about the color
scheme?
Subjects express their thoughts verbally,
which note taker captured for later analysis.
An Exit Survey is then administered, which
the subject completed on SurveyMonkey.com
(see Appendix 5).
Figure 3: User Persona
Figure 4: Task Card
Figure 5: Task Scorecard
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 42]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
Upon departure, subjects were thanked and given an
honorarium of a $10 Metropolitan Transit Authority care
(see Figure 5a) in a PIIM enveloped.
TEST LOCATI ON AND ENVI RONMENT
Testing was conducted in PIIMs ofces at 68 Fifh Avenue,
Suite 200, New York, NY.
Our Usability Lab (or ULab) was a converted conference
room with seating for the subject, moderator and note-taker
(see Figure 5b). Te participants screen was simulcast
via Morae (usability testing sofware), and viewable during
the session by an information designer who served as an
error-checker during the exercise. Te Moderator intro-
duced and initiated the test, read the tasks aloud, said
Begin, then recorded the start and end of each task.
A scorecard was administered afer each task.
Last, for later analysis, PIIM recorded the screen during
each session. Files were saved to our secure server. No
other audio or video was recorded during the session.
Figure 5a: New York Metropolitan Transit Authority
swipe card
Figure 5b: Te Testing Environment
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 43]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
DATA COLLECTI ON
Data was gathered with four separate methods: Screener
& Exit Surveys, subject-completed scorecards, analytics
using Morae usability testing sofware, and notes taken
during session.
SURVEYS
Surveys were used as book-ends to the testing. PIIM
screened potential subjects using a Screener Questionnaire
(Appendix 2), administered through the ULab website
afer subjects agreed to the studys Informed Consent
statement. Screener Questionnaire answers were used to
capture name & contact information, determine gender,
age, level of education, frst language, self-reported
technical literacy, computer usage, and previous experience
with medical sofware. See page 44, Screener Survey Results,
for more information about subject demographics.
THE EXI T SURVEY
(Appendix 5) was administered at the very end of the test,
to give the subject an opportunity to express privately their
satisfaction with the sofware. Tis survey was mostly
open-ended questions, but key ratings were captured on
a 1 (negative) to 7 (positive) scale regarding: ease of use,
likelihood to use, and likelihood to recommend. See page
156, Exit Survey Results, for more information about exit
survey results.
SCORECARDS
Scorecards (Figure 5) were distributed afer each tasks.
Subjects rated tasks on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 being positive,
7 being negative) for Complexity, Visual Design, and
Overall Appeal. Te aggregate values of each category
are perhaps the most telling information about on which
tasks users had issues of efciency and efectiveness.
ANALYTI CS
Using Morae, the team is able to track metrics such as
Task Duration, Success Rates, Error Count, and steps to
completion (a.k.a. Path Deviationmeasured by mouse
clicks and wheel scrolls). PIIM has gone to some length
to automate data collection to remove human bias, and
bring our testing efort into general compliance with the
National Institute of Standards and Technologys (NIST)
recommendations established in their white paper entitled
Customized Common Industry Format for Electronic Health
Record Usability Testing (Schumacher and Lowry, 2010)
(Appendix 6).
To understand both Time and Path metrics, PIIM
conducted internal benchmarking, the aggregate of which
was assumed to represent a power user and, therefore
the optimal time and path for each task. Benchmarking
sessions utilized fve staf members of varying familiarity
with the application.
Time and Path comparisons were determined by
dividing the Observed (subjects aggregate measurements)
by the Optimal (benchmark aggregate measurements).
NOTES
Te team inputted each groups notes into a spreadsheet
(see Figure 5c).
Figure 5a: Note Spreadsheet
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 44]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
Participant Snapshot
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 45]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
WHAT I S YOUR GENDER?
WHAT I S YOUR AGE?
Male: 58.3% (14)
Female: 41.7% (10)
Age 1824: 12.5% (3)
Age 2530: 4.2% (1)
Age 3145: 58.3% (14)
Age 4655: 16.7% (4)
Age 5565: 4.2% (1)
Age 65+: 4.2% (1)
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
Male lemale
What |s your gender?
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
18-24 23-30 31-43 46-33 33-63 63+
What |s your age?
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 46]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
WHAT I S THE HI GHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATI ON THAT YOU HAVE COMPLETED?
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
Less Lhan
Phlgh School
Plgh School/
CLu
Some College 2-?ear College
uegree
(AssoclaLes)
4-?ear College
uegree (8A,
8S)
MasLer's
uegree
uocLoral
uegree
What |s the h|ghest |eve| of educanon that you
have comp|eted?
Less than High School: 4.2% (1)
High School / ged: 4.2% (1)
Some College: 16.7% (4)
2-Year College Degree (Associates): 0.0%(0)
4-Year College Degree (ba, bs): 37.5%(9)
Masters Degree: 33.3% (8)
Doctoral Degree: 4.2%(1)
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 47]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
I S ENGLI SH YOUR FI RST LANGUAGE?
Yes: 83.3% (20)
No: 16.7% (4) Russian, Cantonese, Spanish
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
?es no
Is Lng||sh your hrst |anguage?
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 48]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
WHAT SOFTWARE APPLI CATI ONS DO YOU COMMONLY USE AND CONSI DER YOURSELF PROFI CI ENT WI TH
(YOU MAY SELECT MORE THAN ONE)?
Web browsers (Internet Explorer, Firefox,
Chrome) and e-mail applications (Microsof
Outlook, Google Mail):
Ofce applications (e.g., Microsof Word,
spreadsheet programs, presentation
programs):
Creative applications, for things such as music,
graphics, and video:
Programming applications, for writing and
debugging code:
Gaming:
Other (please specify)
100.0% (24)

95.8% (23)
70.8% (17)
29.2% (7)
29.2% (7)
4.2%(1) Use a lot of specifc programs related to my work
0 3 10 13 20 23 30
CLher (please speclfy)
Camlng
rogrammlng appllcauons, for wrlung and debugglng
code
Creauve appllcauons, for Lhlngs such as muslc,
graphlcs, and vldeo
Cmce appllcauons (e.g., Mlcroso Word, spreadsheeL
programs, presenLauon programs)
Web browsers (lnLerneL Lxplorer, llrefox, Chrome)
and e-mall appllcauons (Mlcroso CuLlook, Coogle
What sohware app||canons do you common|y
use and cons|der yourse|f prohc|ent?
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 49]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ON AVERAGE, HOW OFTEN DO YOU USE THE COMPUTER AT SCHOOL / WORK?
Use the computer daily: 83.3% (20)
Use the computer weekly: 12.5% (3)
Use the computer 2 to 4 times a month: 0.0% (0)
Seldom or never use the computer: 4.2% (1)
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Seldom or never use Lhe compuLer
uesr Lhe compuLer 2 Lo 4 umes a monLh
use Lhe compuLer weekly
use Lhe compuLer dally
Cn average, how ohen do you use the computer
at schoo|]work?
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 50]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Seldom or never use Lhe compuLer
uesr Lhe compuLer 2 Lo 4 umes a monLh
use Lhe compuLer weekly
use Lhe compuLer dally
Cn average, how ohen do you use the computer
at schoo|]work?
ON AVERAGE, HOW OFTEN DO YOU USE THE COMPUTER AT HOME?
Use the computer daily: 87.5% (21)
Use the computer weekly: 12.5% (3)
Use the computer 2 to 4 times a month: 0.0% (0)
Seldom or never use the computer: 0.0% (0)
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 51]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
DO YOU PRESENTLY OR HAVE YOU EVER USED ANY SOFTWARE PACKAGES TO
TRACK HEALTH-RELATED I NFORMATI ON?
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
?es no
Do you present|y or have ever used any sohware
packages to track hea|th-re|ated |nformanon?
Yes: 4.2% (1)
No: 95.8% (23)
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 52]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
EVALUATI ON METHOD
PIIM came to these conclusions and recommendations by
reviewing the data collected, reviewing the notes, watching
the playback of each task (at 2x speed), and fnally reading
the exit surveys.
GROUP A USABI LI TY SCALE
1. No Issue means the functionality covered in the
task is highly usable.
2. Minimal Issues means there is functionality that
could use improvement, but it is still usable. Stated
recommendations are generally based on observation
of research team.
3. Minor Issues means functionality exists which
is impairing usability, but tasks are still completed
successfully. Stated recommendations sometimes
are based on observation of research team, and
occasionally on data.
4. Moderate Issues describes functionality that is
partially impairing the users ability to successfully
complete tasks. Stated recommendations are generally
based on data collected, and occasionally on obser-
vation of the research team.
5. Severe Issues describes functionality that is
defnitely impairing the users ability to successfully
complete tasks. Stated recommendations are based
on data collected.
ATTEMPTED FI XES
Fixes were the result of collaboration between Design,
Development and Usability Leads. Usability Lead makes
a series of recommendations based on testing. Recom-
mendations were then prioritized and estimated (level
of efort for Design and Development), then accepted
or rejected (See Figure 5d). On occasion, alternative
solutions were worked out during the sessions and
implemented. For more information, see Appendix 7:
P1A Review.
GROUP B USABI LI TY SCALE
1. Improved means PIIMs attempted fx success-
fully improved the application across multiple cat-
egories (e.g., scorecard results, successful completion,
time, path or error reduction).
2. Indeterminate means the success of PIIMs
attempted fx is not able to be determined due
to lack of data, conficting data or an absence
of observational anecdotes.
3. Revert or Revise means PIIMs attempted fx
negatively improved the application across
Figure 5a:
Note Spreadsheet
Results & Recommendations
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 53]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
AGGREGATE SUCCESS RATE
Below are the aggregate success rates per module. Tese
are calculated frst by averaging Groups A and B, then by
taking the mean success of all tasks for a given module.
Module
MEDS
EXER
MSG
VI TALS
MEDREC
NUTR
APPT
I MMU
Median
70.83
70.83
77.78
80.21
81.94
86.11
95.83
95.83
81.07
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 54]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
t Setting
t Medications
t Appointments
t Messages
t Immunizations
t Medical Records
Group 1 Task: Task Analysis
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 55]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
1.0 1.0
1.2 1.2
1.7
2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
CLn03
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
CLn03
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me
CLn03
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
CLn03
GEN03
Please login with the persona youve been
provided.
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No Issues
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 56]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
MLuS02
3.8
3.3
2.3
3.3
3.0
3.2
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
MLuS02
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
MLuS02
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me
MLuS02
MEDS02
Youre being treated with various prescription
medications. Your doctor has asked that you
use HealthBoard to track your experience
with the medications. Where and how would
you do this? Say you just took Warfarin, and
it made you feel jittery. How would your
record that?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Severe Issues
t Task Complexity: 3.8 (2nd worst)
t Overall Appeal: 3.0 (Tied, 3rd worst)
t Successful Completion:
66% (4th worst)
t Error Rate: 0.33 (2nd worst)
t Problem with testers not understanding
the blue highlight
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Improved
t Successful Completion:
25% increase, from 66% to 83%
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 15% decrease,
from 1.82 to 1.55
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 37% decrease,
from 2.27 to 1.42
t Number of Errors:
48% decrease, from 0.33 to 0.17
RECOMMENDATI ON
t Te changes were successful, showing
an increased completion rate, less
time, fewer clicks, and less error.
t Consider further simplifying or refne
the visual design.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 57]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
1. Display the take medication nodes as something similar to checkboxes.
Figure 9a: Before
Figure 9b: Afer
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 58]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES (CONTI NUED)
2. Remove the irrelevant Date label, add Today above the blue column.
Figure 10a: Before
Figure 10b: Afer
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 59]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES (CONTI NUED)
3. On specifc Medications, add a Record Intake button.
Figure 11a: Before
Figure 11b: Afer
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 60]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.2
3.0
2.3
2.3
2.2
3.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
MLuS01
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors

0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
MLuS01
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me
MLuS01
MEDS01
You sometimes take Claritin for your allergies
as needed (one 12 hour tablet, 10mg). How
would you report to your HealthBoard team
that you took it today?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Severe Issues
t Successful Completion: 16.6% (Worst)
t Error Rate: 0.67 (Worst)
t Testers do not see the as needed
option, or understand its meaning.
t Testers do not record intake afer
adding the medication.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Improved
t Successful Completion:
100% increase, from 16% to 33%
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 44% decrease,
from 1.90 to 1.07
t Number of Errors:
24% increase, from 0.67 to 0.83.
t In group 1B, two errors were caused
by participants selecting the wrong
medication, either by misspelling
it (e.g. Claretin) or choosing
incorrectly from the autocomplete
interaction. Two other errors were a
task oversight, where the testers forgot
to check the Yes, this medication was
taken today checkbox.
RECOMMENDATI ON
t Te changes were successful, show-
ing an increased completion rate and
fewer clicks.
t Insisting users verify the medication
name may reduce error.
t Force a selection of Yes, this medica-
tion was taken today, perhaps using
Yes and No radio buttons.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 61]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
1. Remove default option for Frequency, if user doesnt selection, pop get error message.
2. Add checkbox: Yes, this medication was taken today.
Figure 14a: Before
Figure 14b: Afer. Error shown if no option for Frequency is selected.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 62]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
1.7
2.0
1.3
2.3
1.7
3.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
MLuS03
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
MLuS03
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
MLuS03
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me

MEDS05
While looking at your medications, you realize
your prescription for Lisinopril has no more
reflls. How do you request a renewal?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON
No Issues
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 63]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.8
2.3
3.2 3.2
2.2
3.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
A101
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
A101
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
A101
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me
A101
APPT01
Next, youd like to schedule a new appointment
regarding your allergies. How would you do
that?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Moderate Issues
t Visual Design: 3.2 (3rd Worst)
t Approx. half the testers were confused
by the common reasons for visit
area and the browse full list text;
we're not sure if this is something they
should use or not.
t For some, it took a second to realize
they needed to click the orange box to
make the appointment.
t Nearly all expected some sort of con-
frmation message following clicking
the orange box, like Your appoint-
ment has been scheduled.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Improved
t Due to the confrmation message,
PIIMs team observed that users had
no confusion afer confrming an
appointment time.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 64]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
Add confrmation message afer appointment is made.
Figure 17a: (Before) Shows a recently added appointment.
Figure 17b: Afer
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 65]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.3
1.7
2.2
2.3
2.0
2.3
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
A103
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors

0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
A103
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me
A103
APPT03
You suddenly remember that you have an
appointment this coming Wednesday, which
is in confict with another event. How do you
cancel the appointment?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No issues
t Some users tried clicking on the ap-
pointments in the lef column. Tese
are disable for prototyping reason, but
in the future these should be available.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 66]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.0
1.8
2.0
1.8
1.3
2.2
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
MSG01-03: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
MSC01-03
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
MSC01-03
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
MSC01-03
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me :
8enchmark 1|me
MSC01-03
MSG0103
You just remember getting a notifcation that
a Physician had responded to an e-mail you
sent your HealthBoard team. How would you
go about reading it and replying?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Minimal Issues
t Users appear to be confused for a
second afer replying to a message.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Improved
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 32% decrease, from 2.14
to 1.47. User noticed the confrmation
message, would confdently announce
Done at the end of the task.
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 42% decrease, from
1.90 to 1.11. Previously users would
browse inboxes or scroll for sent
verifcation.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 67]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
Add a message sent success confrmation.
Figure 18a: (Before) Sent message just appears on the bottom of the thread.
Figure 18b: Afer
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 68]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
3.2
3.0 3.0
3.3
3.0
2.8
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
IMMU01-02: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
lMMu01-02
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
lMMu01-02
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
lMMu01-02
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me
lMMu01-02
I MMU0102
You recently sustained a moderate injury
from stepping on a nail. When is your next
Tetanus shot? What other vaccinations are
due soon?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Minor Issues
t Task Complexity: 3.2 (4rd Worst)
t Visual Design: 3.0 (4th Worst)
t Overall Appeal: 3.0 (Tied 3rd Worst)
t Successful Completion: 83.3%
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 2.95 (5th Worst)
t Error Rate: 0.17
t Most testers had difculty fnding
Tetanus (labeled Td/Tdap).
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Improved
t Successful Completion:
20% increase, from 83% to 100%
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 22% decrease, from 2.95
to 2.29 indicating testers were more
confdent in their answers.
t Error Rate: 0, decrease from 0.17
RECOMMENDATI ONS
t Keeping medical terminology and
shorthand to a minimum will improve
ease of use.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 69]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
1. Change Td/Tdap to Tetanus-diphtheria.
2. Add Today to date bar for consistency with other modules.
Figure 23a: Before
Figure 23b: Afer
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 70]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.0
1.7
2.0
2.3
1.8
2.3
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
lMMu03
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors

0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
lMMu03
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me
lMMu03
I MMU03
When did you have your last Hepatitis A
vaccine?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No issues
GROUP B NOTE
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 664% increase, from 0.48
to 3.67. Mouse wheel scrolling is
included in the Path metric. Occasion-
ally, a heavy scroller will come along
which can create false positives; this is
the case here. Tester P1B-08 had the
heavy hand.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 71]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
3.3
3.8
2.3
3.7
2.7
4.3
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
MLDkLC01: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
MLu8LC01
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
MLu8LC01
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
MLu8LC01
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me
MLu8LC01
MEDREC01
You remembered that your doctor suggested
some next steps for youwas it a class? How
would you fnd out? What visit was it related
to?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Moderate Issues
t Task Complexity: 3.3 (Tied 3rd Worst)
t Successful Completion: 83.3%
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 3.09
t All participants had difculty locating
Next Steps.
t In Appointments, Next Steps are
called Recommendations.
t Testers had trouble locating the related
visit.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Revert or Revise
t Task Complexity:
75% increase, from 3.3 to 5.8
t Visual Design:
127% increase, from 2.5 to 5.7
t Overall Appeal:
63% increase, from 2.7 to 4.3
t Successful Completion:
60% decrease, from 83.33 to 33.33
t Error Rate: 0.67, up from 0
t Without question, PIIM positioned
the Next Steps block in a blind spot
of the UI. Most users failed to fnd the
call-to-action, despite it being omni-
present in the interface.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 72]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
RECOMMENDATI ONS
t Continue working on the display to
Next Steps, but use formative test to
determine the blocks visibility.
t Next Steps should be the initial block
every user sees afer signing into
HealthBoard. Perhaps this can be
accomplished with UI similar to the
Health Focus block within Health-
Boards Provider portal.
t Survey whether Next Steps is the
appropriate vocabulary.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 73]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
1. Have a block or section solely for patient's next steps, located at the top (similar to Health Focus in the Provider Portal).
Also include a link to the original visit.
Figure 27a: Before
Figure 27b: Afer.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 74]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2. In Appointments, re-label "Recommendations" to "Next Steps."
Figure 28a: Before
Figure 28b: Afer.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 75]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.7
3.3
2.2
3.8
2.2
3.3
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
A103
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
A103
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
A103
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me
A103
APPT05
Your doctor recommended a chair yoga
class. How would you register?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No Issues
TASK NOTE
t 17% decrease in task success, likely
due to fall-out from failing the previous
task.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 76]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.0
4.8
2.0
4.8
2.2
4.3
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
MLDkLC02: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
MLu8LC02
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
MLu8LC02
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
MLu8LC02
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me

MEDREC02
How would you mark that Next Step as
complete?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Minimal Issues
t Marking a Next Step as complete just
assigns a check mark; no other action
happens.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Revert or Revise
t Task Complexity:
142% increase, from 2.0 to 4.8
t Visual Design:
142% increase, from 2.0 to 4.8
t Overall Appeal:
108% increase, from 2.2 to 4.5
t Successful Completion:
67% decrease, from 100% to 33%
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 180% increase,
from 0.61 to 1.71
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 276% increase,
from 0.48 to 1.81
t Error Rate: 0.33, up from 0
t Completion of this task was depen-
dent on a previous next steps task
(MEDREC01). Because testers could
not locate the Next Steps area, testers
failed to complete this task.
t No direct usability issues were
observed in those that successfully
completed the task.
RECOMMENDATI ONS
See Recommendations under task
MEDREC01.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 77]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
When marking a Next Step as complete, it should fade away or go to a completed state, perhaps accessible in History.
Figure 29a: Before
Figure 29b: Afer. When an item is marked as complete, it fades out afer one second,
and is then accessible by selecting View > All.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 78]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
1.2
3.3
1.7
3.3
1.3
3.3
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
MLDkLC03: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
MLu8LC03
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
MLu8LC03
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
MLu8LC03
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me
MLu8LC03
MEDREC03
Where would you fnd a history of Next
Steps?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No Issues
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Revert or Revise
t Visual Design:
110% increase, from 1.7 to 3.5
t Overall Appeal:
122% increase, from 1.5 to 3.3
t Successful Completion:
33% decrease, from 100% to 66.6%
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 174% increase, from 1.06
to 2.90, indicating testers had a hard
identifying how to solve the task.
t Error Rate: 0.67, up from 0
t Completion of this task was depen-
dent on a previous next steps task
(MEDREC01). Because testers could
not locate the Next Steps area, testers
failed to complete this task.
t Given this, Mean Success did not
drop as severe as other metrics. Testers
found workaround ways to solve
the task. By going into the Appoint-
ments module and changing to Table
View, testers were able to fnd what
amounted to a history of next steps.
See Figure 29c.
RECOMMENDATI ONS
See Recommendations under task
MEDREC01.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 79]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
Figure 29c: Testers used this view to report a history of next steps.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 80]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.3
1.8
2.7
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
A102, 06: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
A102, 06
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
A102. 06
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
A102. 06
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me
A102, 06
APPT02, 06
You just remembered you have an appointment
with a new doctor coming up soon regarding
your allergies. When is it?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No Issues
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 81]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.7
4.3
2.2
3.8
2.0
3.3
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
MLuS03
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
MLuS03
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
MLuS03
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me

MEDS03
You want to show the new doctor a prescrip-
tion medication you took last year related
to the new appointment. How would you
go about fnding it? How would you fnd
information on it?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Moderate Issues
t Successful Completion:
66.6% (Tied 4th Worst)
t Task Complexity:
142% increase, from 2.0 to 4.8
t Visual Design:
142% increase, from 2.0 to 4.8
t Overall Appeal:
62.5% increase, from 2.2 to 4.5
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 2.07 (6th Worst)
t Testers had trouble grasping All versus
Inactive medication.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Improved
t Successful Completion:
50% increase, from 66% to 100%
RECOMMENDATI ONS
t Because of negative scorecard results,
another examination of verbiage and
visual design might help mitigate
negative perception.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 82]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
1. Change flter label to View, and new options are Current Meds, Discontinued Meds, and All Meds.
Figure 32a: Before
Figure 32b: Afer
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 83]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.8
2.3
3.0
2.2
2.3
2.7
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
MLDkLC06: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
MLu8LC06
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
MLu8LC06
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
MLu8LC06
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me
MLu8LC06
MEDREC06
Next, you want to show the new provider the
results of a past blood test. Where would you
fnd it?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Moderate Issues
t Visual Design: 3.0 (Tied 4th, Worst)
t Successful Completion: 83.3%
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 2.7 (3rd Worst)
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 5.44 (Worst)
Note: Upon investigation, PIIM deter-
mined this data was actually a false
positive. Tester P-02 was a heavy
scroller. Each action on the scroll wheel
(mouse middle button) is counted as
part of the users path.
t Some testers tried to click on service
sub-types (e.g. Labs), as well as other
parts of the UI.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Improved
t Successful Completion:
20% increase, from 83% to 100%
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 84]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
For consistency, add the Today label on the timeline.
Figure 37a: Before
Figure 37b: Afer
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 85]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
1.3
2.0
1.3
2.3
1.7
2.7
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
MLDkLC0S: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
MLu8LC03
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
MLu8LC03
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me
MLu8LC03
MEDREC05
How would you show the provider details
about the nasal procedure you had?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No Issues
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 86]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
3.0
2.3 2.3
2.3
2.8
2.7
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
MLDkLC07: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
MLu8LC07
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
MLu8LC07
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
MLu8LC07
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me
MLu8LC07
MEDREC07
You want to give your medical record to
your new doctor. How would you do that?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No Issues
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 2.72 (2nd Worst) Note:
Tis is another false positive caused
by Tester P1-02 exploration of around
3 minutes.
t Export button does not work. If the
situation was appropriate, moderator
asked: What do you think would
happen when you click the Export
button? Consistently, each tester
responded with something like: I'd
be asked to choose my format, like
PDF, then asked who to send it to...
Tis is a fairly powerful feature in a
PHR, and might be worth mocking
up.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Improved
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 50% decrease,
from 2.72 to 1.36
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 57% decrease,
from 4.03 to 1.71
t Tese metrics are likely improved
because of the addition of a confr-
mation message. Testers felt more
comfortable announcing Done!
See Figure 40a.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 87]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
Figure 40a: Export Confrmation Message
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 88]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.2 2.2
2.7
2.3 2.3
2.7
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
MSC04
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
MSC04
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
MSC04
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me
MSC04
MSG04
How would you send a new (urgent) message
about Warafn (which is making you feel
jittery)?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No issues
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 89]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
3.3
2.8
3.3
2.8
3.2
2.3
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
MSG0S-08: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
MSC03-08
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
MSC03-08
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath

0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me
MSC03-08
MSG0508
You sent a message containing a sensitive
image to your HealthBoard team a few weeks
ago, and now you want to delete it. You know
its an e-mail about a sinus surgery. How
do you go about fnding it, and permanently
deleting it?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Moderate issues
t Task Complexity: 3.3 (Tied 3rd Worst)
t Visual Design: 3.3 (2nd Worst)
t Overall Appeal: 3.2 (2nd Worst)
t Successful Completion:
33.3% (2nd Worst)
t Participants had a hard time recogniz-
ing the search bar. One reason for this
could have been that some had tried
to use it in other modules, and
perhaps had it in their heads that
the search was not functional across
modules.
t Participants did not realize messages
were not permanently deleted.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Indeterminate
t Data is unchanged or invalid. Errors
in Group B were due to tester failure
to permanently delete the message.
Tis was not considered an error
in Group A. Path data is anomalous.
t Users continued to fail to understand
their messages were not permanently
deleted when deleted from the Inbox.
RECOMMENDATI ONS
t Tweak confrmation message ver-
biage: You message has been moved
to Trash.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 90]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
Add confrmation messages to actions.
Figure 41a: Confrmation Message Template
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 91]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.7
2.8
2.3
2.8
2.2
2.7
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
CLn01
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
CLn01
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
CLn01
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me
CLn01
GEN01
How would you go about changing your
password?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No issues
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 92]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
4.3
2.0
3.7
2.3
3.7
2.7
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
CLn04
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
CLn04
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me
CLn04
GEN04
HealthBoard will e-mail you notifcations
and reminders, such as when you have any
upcoming appointment. How would you
adjust these notifcation settings?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Severe issues
t Task Complexity: 4.5 (Worst)
t Visual Design: 3.7 (Worst)
t Overall Appeal: 3.7 (Worst)
t Successful Completion: 50%
(3rd Worst)
t Error Rate: 0.17
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Improved
t Task Complexity:
56% decrease, from 4.5 to 2.0
t Visual Design:
36% decrease, from 3.7 to 2.3
t Overall Appeal:
27% decrease, from 3.7 to 2.7
t Successful Completion:
100% increase, from 50 to 100
t Error Rate: 0, down from 0.17
t Testers defnitely understood Settings
versus the previous gear icon.
RECOMMENDATI ONS
t Te changes were successful, show-
ing increased user satisfaction and
completion rate.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 93]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
Time and time again, users failed to identify the gear mean as Settings. Testers would navigate from module to module in
search of it. PIIM changing the wheel icon to a link called Settings, and positioned it closer to the users name.
Figure 44a: Before
Figure 44b: Afer
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 94]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.3
1.3
2.3
2.2
2.0
2.3
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
CLn03
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
CLn03
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
CLn03
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath

GEN05
How would you make all the text on the
screen bigger?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
MI NI MAL I SSUES
t Despite 100% successful completions,
testers did not understand what
Type and Units means. One tester
commented, That makes me think
of blood type.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Improved
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 20% decrease,
from 1.75 to 1.40
t Testers completed the task with ease.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 95]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
Change to Font and Units.
Figure 45a: Before
Figure 45b: Afer
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 96]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
1.3
1.7 1.7
2.3
1.7
2.3
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
CLn06
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
CLn06
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved ath:
8enchmark ath
CLn06
0.00
0.30
1.00
1.30
2.00
2.30
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbserved 1|me:
8enchmark 1|me
CLn06
GEN06
How would you change the homepage view of
your HealthBoard?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No issues
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 2.85 (Worst) Note:
Tis is a false positive, as Tester P1-06
accidentally logged out, and had to log
back in.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 97]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
tVital Signs
t Exercise
t Nutrition
t Educational Resources
Group 2 Task: Task Analysis
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 98]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.2
2.0
2.3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
CLn03
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me

0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
CLn03
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
CLn03
GEN03
Please login with the persona youve been
provided.
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No issues
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 99]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.0
2.8
2.0
3.2
1.7
3.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
nu1801
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
nu1801
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
nu1801
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
nu1801
NUTR01
For the last six months, youve been using
HealthBoard to maintain a healthy weight
through diet and exercise. Report eating
a grilled cheese sandwich with tomato
for lunch.
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No issues
t Most testers by-passed the help
pop-up; consider making available
on demand.
t Testers seem confused afer completing
the task, wondering where their meal
went.
t Users seem confused by the What
portion? input. For a sandwich, its
hard to tell which option is relevant.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Revert or Revise
t Task Complexity:
40% increase, from 2.0 to 2.8
t Visual Design:
60% increase, from 2.0 to 3.2
t Overall Appeal:
76% increase, from 1.7 to 3.0
t Successful Completion:
17% decrease, from 100% to 83.33%
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 89% increase,
from 1.58 to 2.99
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 60% increase, from 1.31
to 2.10
t Error Rate: 0.17, up from 0
t No participant used the Other feld.
t All participants seem confused by
the Add a favorite meal dropdown.
Consider a diferent treatment that
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 100]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
removes the drop-down from the
screen.
t Consider a diferent treatment for
What Portion? Each tester entered
in a diferent unit (e.g. plates, servings,
etc.); one tester ignored the option
completely. Maybe a more vernacular
reference like palm(s) of my hand
can be used. Te goal should be to
communicate the record to the
dietician as accurate as possible.
t Tere may also be a diferent treatment
of the meal type (e.g. breakfast, dinner)
that could improve efciency and
reduce error. Showing these options
on screen may accomplish this.
t Generally, users will not enter any
notes. Perhaps hide this feld to reduce
confusion, or only make it available
on-click.
ATTEMPTED FI XES
1. Add an Other feld for the use to create a custom unit.
Figure 47a: Before: No Other option exists.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 101]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
Figure 47b: Afer: PIIM added an Other option.
Figure 47c: Afer: Selecting the Other option reveals a text box for the user to create
their own unit.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 102]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.7
1.8
2.3
3.0
2.0
2.7
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
CLn02
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
CLn02
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
CLn02
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
CLn02
GEN02
HealthBoard is in button view by default.
Please change the home screen to widget
view.
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No issues
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 3.38 (3rd Worst)
t Per Phase1A, PIIM adjusted the cog
icon to be a Settings link. Tis change
occurred for the last two participants of
Phase2A, and is anecdotally validated
by comparing the time improvements
of the last two testers, seen below.
Time on Task (Seconds)
t P2-01 167.99
t P2-02 47.2
t P2-03 29.81
t P2-04 50.19
t P2-05 22.21
t P2-06 12.17
t Regarding the Dashboard, Tester
P2-04 stated my initial reaction is
wow, all this data!
t Afer changing the widget view back
to button view, Tester P2-02 said it
was just easier and [I] wasnt sure
where to be looking [in the widget
view]. [Te button view is] a little
less cluttered, I think.
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
t For widget view, the arrow should ex-
pand and collapse the block, while the
text (e.g. Weight) should go to detail
page. For example, when a user clicks
on Blood Pressure from the widget
view, it should lead them directly to
that page in the module.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 103]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.8
1.8
2.8 2.8
2.2
3.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
VI1ALS01: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
vl1ALS01
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
vl1ALS01
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
vl1ALS01
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
vl1ALS01
VI TALS01
Tis morning you weighed yourself: 182 lbs.
Enter that into HealthBoard.
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No issues
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 104]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
3.0
3.2
3.0
3.2
2.3
3.2
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
VI1ALS02: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
vl1ALS02
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
vl1ALS02
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
vl1ALS02
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
vl1ALS02
VI TALS02
How much did you weigh around this time
last year?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Minor issues
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 4.12 (2nd Worst)
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 4.64 (2nd Worst)
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Indeterminate
t Successful Completion:
33% decrease, from 100% to 66%
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 42% decrease, indicating
the tool tips may have an efect on the
testers ability to seek information.
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 17% decrease, from 4.64
to 3.87, again indicating the tool tips
may have an efect on the testers ability
to seek information.
RECOMMENDATI ONS
t Perhaps adding a designation between
years in the bottom timeline would
help understand the graphs scope?
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 105]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
When mousing-over a data point on a chart, add a popover which tells the user its values (e.g. October 3, 2011; 195 lbs.).
Figure 48a: Before: No tool tip appears for data.
Figure 48b: Afer: Tool tip with node value appears when hovering over the graph.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 106]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
4.3
3.8
3.3
4.3
3.3 3.3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
VI1ALS06: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
vl1ALS06
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
vl1ALS06
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
vl1ALS06
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
vl1ALS06
VI TALS06
You last reported that your weight was 175
lbs. and temperature 103. Go back and add a
comment that you had the fu.
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Severe issues
t Task Complexity: 4.5 (2nd Worst)
t Overall Appeal: 3.3 (Tie, 3rd Worst)
t Successful Completion:
33% (Tie x3, Worst)
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 2.56 (6th Worst)
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 2.85 (5th Worst)
t Te test called for testers to fnd the
tasks values, and add a comment.
Perhaps due to the absence of the
universal rule specifed in the design,
testers appeared to not associate the
Comment section (on bottom) with
the values in the sparklines.
t Most participants did not scroll to see
the Comment section.
t For those that did, the relevant
comment would display incorrect
information. Tis did not interfere
with the one tester who completed the
task this way.
t A common attempted completion
of this task was to click the Record
Vitals button, and add a new record.
Augmenting an existing record could
be an alternate solution, but testers
forgot to back-date the record, making
the task a failure.
t Tester P2-05: Te only option is
Record VitalsAh, I think I found it.
I am not seeing an easy way to edit.
I can add, but not edit easily. Tere
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 107]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
is no edit option visible. In the table
view, I can see the dates and I can see
the list, but I cannot select to edit.
t Tester P2-06: I see what the comments
are, but I dont see where I can record
comments.
t To navigate to a detail page, testers
would frequently click title in the
middle section of all vitals (e.g.,
Temperature). Te block then closes,
and testers appear to be surprised.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Improved
t Successful Completion:
100% increase, from 33% to 66%
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 39% decrease,
from 2.85 to 1.74
t Error Rate: 0.5, up from 0
RECOMMENDATI ONS
t See Figure 49D: Te high Error Rate
is caused by confusion between the
Submit link, which commits the
comment, and the Close button. Due
to its placement, most users thought
the Close button was the Submit
button. Consider a diferent treatment,
such as making Submit a button
instead of a link. Also, Close could
save whatever comment was entered.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 108]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
1. From the Vital detail screen (e.g. Weight), when a tester clicks a data point on the chart, show the Record Vitals popup.
Repeat on Table View when user clicks a row. Apply this click-to-edit change to the UI pattern across the app. Change the
cursor to pointer on hover over a data point. In Edit Record popup, add text area below any existing comment so user can
easily add a comment. Remove Add Comment link.
Figure 49a: Before: Clicking on a data point makes no action, creating a dead-end
for testers. Te cursor remains an arrow, not a pointer (not visible below).
Figure 49aa: Before: Under All, clicking on a data point would reveal the entry.
Te user would then have to click Add comment to continue.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 109]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
Figure 49b: Afer: Cursor shows as a pointer (not visible below).
Figure 49c: Afer: When the user clicks, the revised pop-up appears.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 110]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
Figure 49d Afer: User types a comment, and clicks Submit.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 111]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2. For the blocks in the middle of the All vitals section, the arrow should expand and collapse the block, and the text (e.g.
Weight) should go to detail page. Apply this rule wherever this UI pattern exists, including the dashboard. For example,
when a user clicks on Blood Pressure from the widget view, it should lead them directly to that page in the module.
Figure 49e: Before: Clicking the text Weight would collapse the block.
Figure 49f: Afer: In the revision, clicking the text goes to the detail view.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 112]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
3.8
3.2
3.7
4.3
3.0 3.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
VI1ALS10-11: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
vl1ALS10-11
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
vl1ALS10-11
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
vl1ALS10-11
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
vl1ALS10-11
VI TALS1011
Where would you view other past comments?
Has your doctor lef any comments recently?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Moderate issues
t Task Complexity: 3.8 (4th Worst)
t Successful Completion:
67% (Tie, 3rd Worst)
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 4.61 (Worst)
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 7.31 (Worst)
t Testers had to spend a lot of time ex-
ploring to fnd the Comments section.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Improved
t Successful Completion:
25% increase, from 66% to 83%
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 27% decrease,
from 4.61 to 3.38
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 15% decrease,
from 7.31 to 6.18
RECOMMENDATI ONS
t Consider leaving the comments box
open. It is easy to understand when
it is open, plus it is consistent with the
rest of the items in the block.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 113]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
PIIM moved the comment block to the top of the All area, but collapsed. Revised block says 14 total comments,
3 provider comments.
Figure 50a: Before: Comments lived at the bottom of the scrolling area, making them
difcult to fnd.
Figure 50b: Afer: Te new solution moves the Comments to the top, but collapsed.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 114]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.8
2.7
3.2
3.3
2.3
2.7
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
VI1ALS13: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
vl1ALS13
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
vl1ALS13
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
vl1ALS13
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
vl1ALS13
VI TALS13
Next, you want to review your weight history.
Where would you fnd details? What is your
weight goal? When were you overweight?
How are you doing now?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Minimal issues
t To determine the goal, most users
clicked the Edit Goal button, even
though the information was present
on the screen.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Indeterminate
t Successful Completion:
33% decrease, from 100% to 66%
RECOMMENDATI ONS
t Te Goal information may be some-
what of a blind spot. Consider
an alternate treatment. Testers do not
seem to have any trouble fnding the
goal line from the legend. Perhaps
a rollover on the line displaying the
Goal value would be a meaningful
improvement.
t Consider making the Goal (in blue
text) section clickable (3 testers
attempted to click).
t If a user rolls over Goal in the legend,
show a tool tip which informs the goal
value.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 115]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
Change text Target BMI to Goal: BMI
Figure 51a: Before: Reads Target BMI, inconsistent with the Edit Goal button.
Figure 51b: Afer: Reads Goal: bmi.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 116]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
1.3
2.3
1.3
2.8
1.7
2.8
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
VI1ALS14-1S: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
vl1ALS14-13
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
vl1ALS14-13
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
vl1ALS14-13
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
vl1ALS14-13
VI TALS1415
Change your goal from 170 pounds to 165
pounds.
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No issues
RECOMMENDATI ONS
t Consider making the Goal (in blue
text) section clickable (3 testers
attempted to click).
t If a user rolls over Goal in the legend,
show a tool tip which informs the goal
value.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 117]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
3.7
3.8
4.0
3.3
3.7
3.2
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
LxL801
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me

0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
LxL801
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
LxL801
EXER01
Next were going to think about Exercise.
Active Duty personnel are required to
maintain their physical condition, and must
take regular Physical Readiness Tests. Te test
consists of curl-ups, push-ups, and a 1.5 mile
run. Personnel are given a score from Failure
(less than 45 points) to Maximum (100 points).
Based on this, in what area have you most
improved? In what area are you struggling?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Minor issues
t Visual Design: 4.0 (Tie, 4th Worst)
t Overall Appeal: 3.7 (2nd Worst)
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 3.03 (4th Worst)
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 3.17 (4th Worst)
t Testers appeared to be confused by
the spider chart. All acknowledged
and played with it, but few reported
answers from it.
t Te excess informationsmiling faces,
scores, improvements or declines
indicated with plus/minus symbols
(e.g. +10)appeared to confuse
people. Tester P2-02: Oops, its
because the number is higherbut
the happy face isnt too happy. Tester
P2-04: Im looking at where it says
+16, +15. Im thinking those are
the areas Ive improved. It looks
like I improved in the 1.5 Mile Run,
and Im not doing too well with
push-up... wait, if I actually go by the
icons, Im not doing well in weight
but by points, Im not doing well in
push-ups.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 118]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Improved
t Successful Completion:
20% increase, from 83% to 100%
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 23% decrease,
from 3.17 to 2.45
RECOMMENDATI ONS
t Add Last Test (Practice):
before the mm/dd/yyyy.
t Testers seemed confused by the com-
ment bubbles in the right column.
Consider removal.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 119]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
Remove spider chart. Remove timeline. Apply easy to understand gauge graphics representing current measure with
references: bad, good, excellent, etc. Hint at how scoring works. Fix Physician Assigned Exercise information to be
consistent with the Physician Assigned tab.
Figure 52a: Before
Figure 52b: Afer: Gauge design included, information refactored.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 120]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
3.2
3.3
4.0
4.3
3.3
3.8
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
LxL8028
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
LxL8028
0.00
3.00
10.00
13.00
20.00
23.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
LxL8028
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors

EXER02B
How much time until your next PRT?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Minimal issues
t Visual Design: 4.0 (Tie, 4th Worst)
t Overall Appeal: 3.3 (Tie, 3rd Worst)
t Testers likely rated poorly because
of an oh silly me moment, as the
information was front and center
on the screen.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Revert or Revise
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 196% increase,
from 1.35 to 4.01
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 965% increase, from 2.43
to 25.83.: Upon investigation, PIIM
determined this data was actually
a false positive. Tester P2B-10 was
a heavy scroller. Each action on the
scroll wheel (mouse middle button)
is counted as part of the users path.
RECOMMENDATI ONS
t Displaying the time till next PRT
(e.g. 3 months) is likely a more
efective communication.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 121]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
Change to read: Your next PRT is on mm/dd/yyyy.
Figure 53a: Before
Figure 53b: Afer
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 122]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
3.8
3.2
4.3
3.3
3.0 3.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
LkLk06, 09: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
LxL806, 09
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
LxL806, 09
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
LxL806, 09
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
LxL806, 09
EXER06, 09
What is your PRT goal for the run?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Moderate issues
t Task Complexity: 3.8 (5th Worst)
t Visual Design: 4.3 (2nd Worst)
t Overall Appeal: 3.0 (2nd Worst)
t Successful Completion:
50% (Tie, 2nd Worst)
t Users who successfully completed this
task clicked the Edit Goal button to
get the actual value, which is subopti-
mal considering the information was
on the screen.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Indeterminate
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 142% increase, from 1.13
to 2.73. Insufcient data for conclusion.
t Error Rate:
0.5, up from 0. Tis was due to a PIIM
observer marking failed tasks as errors.
RECOMMENDATI ONS
t Consider making the Goal (in blue
text) section clickable (3 testers
attempted to click).
t If a user rolls over Goal in the legend,
show a tool tip which informs the goal
value.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 123]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
Change text Target Points and Time to Goal: Points and Time
Figure 54a: Before
Figure 54b: Afer
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 124]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
3.2 3.2 3.2
3.3
3.0
2.3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
LxL810
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me

0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
LxL810
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
LxL810
EXER10
You want to challenge yourself by the new
year. Change your PRT goal from Satisfactory
to Excellent, which is a time less than or equal
to 11 minutes 30 seconds.
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Moderate issues
t Successful Completion:
33% (Tie x3, Worst)
t Error Rate: 0.33 (Tie, 3rd Worst)
t Incomplete tasks were generally
the result of testers failing to set the
Achieve the goal by: calendar option.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Improved
t Successful Completion:
100% increase, from 33% to 66%
t Error Rate: 0.17, down from 0.33
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 125]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
Eliminate Next PRT as a default choice, force users to make the selection. Calculate the date of the next PRT,
and display it in the option (e.g., Next PRT: 02/02/2013).
Figure 55a: Before: Has default selected.
Figure 55b: Afer: No default selected, error shown below.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 126]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
3.0
3.3
4.8
3.3
4.7
3.3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
LkLk14, 1S: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
LxL814, 13
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
LxL814, 13
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
LxL814, 13
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
LxL814, 13
EXER14, 15
Your doctor has recommended a few exer-
cises for you. What are they? What reason did
the doctor provide? How many calories did
you burn on your last exercise? How much
weight have you lost since you started?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Moderate issues
t Task Complexity: 5.0 (Worst)
t Visual Design: 4.8 (Worst)
t Overall Appeal: 4.7 (Worst)
t Successful Completion:
50% (Tie, 2nd Worst)
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 2.89 (5th Worst)
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 4.01 (3rd Worst)
t In this task, the testers perception
of the information was studied. Te
causation of the poor scorecard marks
may result from the absence of clear
answers; a sense of completion.
t If a participant failed to answer all
the questions correctly, the task was
marked as incomplete. Not fnding
the correct page was the reason testers
failed this task.
t Despite being the same layout as
Vital Signs, testers did not think to
click on Run / Walk and Bike in the
lef column. Tis could be because it
is a shorter list, or perhaps the absence
of an Add Tracker button draws less
attention to it.
t Instead, testers would click on Run
/ Walk and Bike links in the middle
section, with the expectation of going
to the detail page. Te block would
collapse, leading to confusion.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 127]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Improved
t Task Complexity:
43% decrease, from 5.0 to 3.5
t Visual Design:
45% decrease, from 4.8 to 3.3
t Overall Appeal:
42% decrease, from 4.7 to 3.7
t Successful Completion:
67% increase, from 50% to 83%
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 35% decrease, from
2.89 to 1.87, indicating testers had
a much easier time fnding the
information.
t Observed Path: Benchmark:
22% decrease, from 4.01 to 3.15
RECOMMENDATI ONS
t Te Physician Assigned and Personal
exercises on the Summary tab should
link their respective detail pages.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 128]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
Putting the expand-and-collapse action on the down arrow, and setting the text (e.g., Run/Walk) as a link to the detail
page would eliminate a lot of confusion.
Figure 56a: Before: Clicking on the text would collapse the section.
Figure 56b: Afer: Clicking on the test goes to the detailed view.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 129]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.2
2.7
2.3
2.7
1.7
2.7
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
LxL811
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
LxL811
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
LxL811
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
LxL811
EXER11
Record that you walked 2 miles in 45 minutes
yesterday, and cycled 10 miles for 90 minutes
the day before (two days ago).
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Moderate issues
t Successful Completion:
50% (Tie, 2nd Worst)
t Error Rate: 0.67 (Worst)
t Overall Appeal: 4.7 (Worst)
t Te task required users to make two
entries: one for yesterday, the other
for 2 days ago. Testers failed because
they put in a single entry, ignoring the
Date issue.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Improved
t Successful Completion:
33% increase, from 50% to 67%
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 37% increase, from 1.56
to 2.14, perhaps because more testers
were able to successfully complete the
task.
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 33% increase, from 1.45
to 1.92, again, perhaps because more
testers were able to successfully com-
plete the task.
t Error Rate: 0.33, down from 0.67
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 130]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
PIIM moved the date selection to the top of the popup for added attention.
Figure 57a: Before
Figure 57b: Afer
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 131]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
3.3
2.8
3.0
3.7
2.7
3.2
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
NU1k07-09: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
nu1807-09
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
nu1807-09
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
nu1807-09
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
nu1807-09
NUTR0709
Speaking of calories, tell me about your
food plan. What should you be eating? What
should you avoid? What's the reason for this
plan? How many calories a day should you
have?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Minimal issues
t Testers would click through to
Educational Resources module, feel
a bit lost, and have to navigate back
to Nutrition via the homescreen.
t Testers commented the photos of
foods to take/avoid are small and
difcult to decipher.
t Tester P2-02 thought the 1,700
calories listed under Total Calories
in the middle column was her calorie
budget.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Indeterminate
t Task Complexity:
15% decrease, from 3.3 to 2.8
t Visual Design:
23% increase, from 3.0 to 3.7
t Overall Appeal:
19% increase, from 2.7 to 3.2
t Successful Completion:
83%, No Change
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 16% increase,
from 2.03 to 2.35
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 40% increase, from 1.39
to 1.94, this may have been caused
by Tester PB2-10s heavy use of the
mouse scroll wheel.
t Error Rate: 0.33, up from 0.17
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 132]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
1. Eliminate the Summary tab, and have only My Food Journal (default) and My Food Plan tabs. Refactoring to the design
to eliminate redundant information.
Figure 58a: Before: Shows the Summary tab with a lot of the same information as the
two other tabs.
Figure 58b: Afer: Shows the My Food Journal tab as the default tab, along with the
re-factored layout. See additional attempted fxed below for more color.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 133]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2. User should enter food, then see it appear in the adjacent table. Remove the Record Food Journal button.
Figure 59a: Before: A user would enter food into the Record a Meal form
Figure 59b: Before: and it would appear on the bottom of the My Food Journal tab.
PIIM found that afer entering a meal, most users went looking for their entry to make
sure it was saved.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 134]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
Figure 59c: Afer: Entered meals appear directly next to the form.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 135]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
3. Add title text on rollover of photos in My Food Plan (e.g. Fried Foods).
Figure 60a: Before: No information is ofered on hover.
Figure 60b: Afer: A title text appears ofer that this photo is Fried Chicken.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 136]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
4. Remove the yellow area on bar graphs. Improve communication around 1,700 calories consumed.
Figure 61a: Before: Testers were confused by the Total Calories: 1,700 calories text.
Testers also failed to recognize the yellow color in the bar graphs indicates caution.
Figure 61b: Afer: PIIM refactored the design to improve the content communication.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 137]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
3.2 3.2
3.3
3.7
2.2
2.7
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
nu1818
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
nu1818
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
nu1818
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors

NUTR18
How have you been doing on your Food Plan
over the last week? Over the last month? Did
you ever exceed your calorie budget? What
nutritional recommendations did you fail to
follow?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Moderate issues
t Successful Completion:
67% (Tie, 3rd Worst)
t Testers did not have any issues fnding
the reporting, adjusting the dates, or
interpreting the information.
t Tasks were marked as incomplete
because of failure to answer the last
question regarding nutritional recom-
mendations. Testers had difculty
identifying or understanding the indi-
cators for Sodium, Fats & Oils, Sugars,
Alcohol and Water.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Improved
t Successful Completion:
25% increase, from 67% to 83%
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 44% increase,
from 1.77 to 2.56
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 103% increase, from 1.32
to 2.69, this may have been caused
by Tester PB2-10s heavy use of the
mouse scroll wheel.
t Error Rate: 0, down from 0.17
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 138]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
Redesign the indicators to improve the communication. Instead of turning red, perhaps indicate by how much
the recommendation was exceed. Consider using the bar graph in other part of the module.
Figure 62a: Before: Te icons fll up and turn red when a user exceeds the recom-
mendation.
Figure 62b: Afer: PIIM used a bar chart to communicate status and overages.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 139]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.0
2.3
2.0
3.3
2.2
3.3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
nu1813
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
nu1813
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
nu1813
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
nu1813
NUTR15
What did you eat for breakfast today? How do
you fnd nutritional information on it?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Minimal issues
t Testers had a minor issue discover-
ing the location of the food journal
(indicated by higher-than-normal
Observed Path: Benchmark of 2.29)
as it's on the bottom of the screen
and partially of-screen.
t Nutritional information was shown
on hover, which fickered and frus-
trated some testers.
t Impressively, testers realized it was
necessary to change the date to 1d.
RECOMMENDATI ONS
t Make the help icon available on-click,
provide a way to close it. Most testers
who successfully completed the task
attempted to frst click on the infor-
mation icon.
t To fnd information on past meals,
3 testers clicked on the View History
link on My Food Plan tab and even
in the Notes from My Doctor section.
Consider removing these links.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 140]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
1.7
1.3
2.8
1.8
1.7
2.2
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
nu1806
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me

0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
nu1806
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
nu1806
NUTR06
Report that you consumed 5 cups of water
today.
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Minimal issues
t Most participants attempted to solve
this by clicking on the Water indicator
on the My Food Journal page.
t Some users expected a Save button to
commit the water section.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 141]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.2
1.8
2.0 2.0
1.7
2.8
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
nu1804
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
nu1804
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
nu1804
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
nu1804
NUTR04
HealtBoard allows you to save frequent meals
for quick entry. You eat a peanut butter
and jelly sandwich for a snack at least once
a week, and have saved it. Record you ate a
peanut butter and jelly sandwich for a snack
today.
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No issues
NOTE
See recommendations under task NUTR01.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 142]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.0
1.7
2.2
2.0
1.3
2.8
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
nu1816
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
nu1816
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
nu1816
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
nu1816
NUTR16
Say youve already entered todays dinner into
HealthBoard. Its something you eat frequent-
ly. Save it for quick entry.
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Moderate issues
t Successful Completion:
50% (Tie, 2nd Worst)
t Error Rate: 0.33 (Tie, 3rd Worst)
t Some testers had issues locating
or understanding the idea of saving
a meal.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Improved
t Successful Completion:
67% increase, from 50% to 83%
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 88% increase,
from 1.15 to 2.16
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 103% increase, from 0.72
to 2.22 this may have been caused
by Tester PB2-10s heavy use of the
mouse scroll wheel.
t Error Rate: 0.17, down from 0.33
RECOMMENDATI ONS
t No improvement on the time and
path. Consider removing the unnec-
essary prompt afer saving: Are you
sure you want to save this meal?
t Consider moving the Favorites
column to the lef side of the table,
making for a slightly more natural
position and proximity to the entry
form.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 143]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
1. Remove Health Focus block, as it has little value and adds noise
Figure 63a: Before: Te arrow indicates the Health Focus block.
Figure 63b: Afer: Te refactored design removes the Health Focus block.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 144]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2. Instead of having a Save function, instead use a star to favorite a meal.
Figure 64a: Before: Te user would have to mouse-over a row to reveal the Save link.
Figure 64b: Afer: Te favorite column exists on the right. User just clicks the star to
favorite.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 145]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
1.2
1.8
1.3
1.7
1.3
2.3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
90
93
100
103
110
113
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
nu1810
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
nu1810
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
nu1810
NUTR10
How much sodium should you have daily?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No issues
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 146]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.3
2.2
2.3 2.3 2.3
2.3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
VI1ALS19: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
vl1ALS19
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
vl1ALS19
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
vl1ALS19
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
vl1ALS19
NUTR19
Speaking of sodium, does your most recent
blood pressure check indicate any hyperten-
sion (a.k.a. high blood pressure)?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No issues
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 147]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
4.3
3.7
4.2
3.8
3.3
4.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
VI1ALS20: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
vl1ALS20
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
vl1ALS20
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
vl1ALS20
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
vl1ALS20
VI TALS20
You smoke an occasional cigarette, and want
to quit. Add a tracker to help you remember
how much youve been smoking.
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Moderate issues
t Task Complexity: 4.3 (3rd Worst)
t Visual Design: 4.2 (3rd Worst)
t Overall Appeal: 3.3 (Tie, 3rd Worst)
t Successful Completion:
67% (Tie, 3rd Worst)
t Error Rate: 0.5 (2nd Worst)
t Testers had trouble identifying which
module a Tracker would be in.
t Labels were confusing to Tester P2-02,
and testers were generally confused by
the Tracker Entry part of the form.
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
Revert or Revised
t Successful Completion:
25% decrease, from 67% to 50%
t Observed Time:
Benchmark: 116% increase,
from 1.51 to 3.26
t Observed Path:
Benchmark: 122% increase,
from 0.91 to 2.02
t Error Rate: 0.33, down from 0.5
RECOMMENDATI ONS
t Testers did not relate trackers to
Vital Signs. Consider renaming Vital
Signs, perhaps to Trackers or Vitals
Tracker.
t Consider a diferent location for
trackers.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 148]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
1. Change the button label from + Add Tracker to + Add New Tracker.
Figure 65a: Before
Figure 65b: Afer
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 149]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2. Change the titles and labels of the Add New Tracker creation form. PIIM also added the units label afer the Result text
box.
Figure 66a: Before
Figure 66b: Afer
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 150]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
1.8
1.7
1.8
2.3
2.0
2.3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
nu1812
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
nu1812
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
nu1812
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors

NUTR12
You wont always have access to a computer
and the internet. Download a worksheet to
log your meals on-the-go.
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No issues
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 151]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
3.3
3.8
3.3
3.3
2.3
3.3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
LDU03, 06: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
Luu03, 06
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
Luu03.06
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
Luu03, 06
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
Luu03, 06
EDU03, 06
Where would you fnd information on the
occasional heartburn that some foods cause
you? Bookmark it for future reference.
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Moderate issues
t Successful Completion:
33% (Tie x3, Worst)
t 50% of testers could not identify the
correct module.
RECOMMENDATI ONS
t On the widget view, elevate the
position of Educational Resources
so that it is on the screen by default.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 152]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
1.7
1.3
2.0
2.3
2.0
2.3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
LxL804
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me

0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
LxL804
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
LxL804
EXER04
What personal exercises are you doing?
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
No issues
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 153]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2.0
1.3
2.3 2.3 2.3
2.8
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
7.0
Croup A Croup 8
LkLk17-18: Mean Scorecard 8eLurn,
Croup A vs. 8
1ask ComplexlLy vlsual ueslgn Cverall Appeal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Success
LxL817-18
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
1|me
LxL817-18
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Croup A Croup 8
Cbv. : 8enchmark
ath
LxL817-18
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Croup A Croup 8
Mean Number of
Lrrors
LxL817-18
EXER1718
Add weight training as personal exercise.
Add soccer.
GROUP A DETERMI NATI ON:
Minimal issues
t Error Rate: 0.33 (Tie, 3rd Worst)
t In the Untrackable Exercise form,
Test P2-02, typed her persona name
Tifany Janeway instead of the
Exercise name.
t Most participants were confused by
the distinction between Trackable and
Untrackable exercise. One tester ques-
tioned: Arent all exercises trackable?
GROUP B VALI DATI ON:
I MPROVED
t Successful Completion:
20% increase, from 83% to 100%
t Error Rate: 0, down from 0.33
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 154]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
ATTEMPTED FI XES
1. Eliminated the Trackable versus Untrackable distinction. Te form, formerly known as Untrackable,
becomes an Other option.
Figure 67a: Before: User just choose between Trackable and Untrackable exercise,
which confused testers.
Figure 67b: Afer: User just chooses an exercise, and Untrackable exercise becomes
Other.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 155]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2. Change the Name default text to be Exercise Name.
Figure 68a: Before
Figure 68b: Afer
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 156]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
Exit Survey Results: Group 1
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 157]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2. ON THE SCALE BELOW, HOW EASY OR DI FFI CULT DI D YOU FI ND USI NG THE SOFTWARE?
GROUP 1B GROUP 1A
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
(7) Very
Likely
6 5 4 3 2 (1) Very
unlikely.
...Most challenging were the
navigation aspects that were unlike
either Windows or Mac.
Getting used to navigating
Couldnt fgure out one task at all, and was also confused
by the password changing task. Most challenging were the
navigation aspects that were unlike either Windows or Mac.
Finding where to click to record additional information
about medications, and fguring out which of the available
appointment slots was actually applicable.
Not being able to take my own notes. I think I would have
been able to ofer better comments, if I could take a quick
note on each of the scorecards.
learning all of the bits of the sofware/program
Locating how to change notifcations...I just didnt see the
cog even though I am familiar with that mechanism for
changing things.
Finding the Next Steps information.
Date navigation.
fnding old medications, registering for chair yoga,
perhaps one more thing I cant remember
Recording that I have done something scheduled in the
Next Step.
Finding next steps
Finding when I took certain medications. Looking at
history of Next Steps. Not sure what Next Steps meant.
Finding the Next Steps information.
3. WHAT PART OF THE TESTI NG DI D YOU FI ND WAS THE MOST CHALLENGI NG?
GROUP 1B GROUP 1A
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
(7) Very
Likely
6 5 4 3 2 (1) Very
unlikely.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 158]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
Most of the information was very
clear. Te home screen was easy and
made sense.
Finding the subject needed on the home page
Most of the information was very clear. Te home screen
was easy and made sense.
All of the choices that were available via buttons or tabs
at the top of the screen.
Most of the actions were fairly straight forward, the
questions or actions were easy to understand.
sending mail, but I use it to send mail really unless I had
to
Messaging and appointments.
Navigating the main heading
sections
Te messages module.
adjusting settings on the site
Finding information on the medical record.
Navigating the main heading sections
Settings
Logging in and changing settings.
4. WHAT PART OF THE TESTI NG DI D YOU FI ND THE EASI EST?
GROUP 1B GROUP 1A
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 159]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
Making appointments!
Te medical history and the
coordination of information between
appointments and suggested next
steps.
lab/test results at your fngertips
Making appointments, communicating with the medical
personal easily.
Making appointments!
Te medical history and the coordination of information
between appointments and suggested next steps.
my past history, particularly immunizations and
prescription info.
Appointments and medications. Probably tracking
would have been if Id been looking at it. (I took a look in
my desperate attempt to locate notifcations.)
Te medication history, and the
data it was pulling on meds, was
surprisingly helpful.
...Information thats organized in a
way thats relevant and easy to fnd
and remember.
Te medication history, and the data it was pulling on
meds, was surprisingly helpful.
being able to pull up medical records, and also pulling
up drug dosages/when they were prescribed also great to
record exercise, and immunizations
Icons with a title that tells me what information Im
getting when I click on it. Information thats organized in
a way thats relevant and easy to fnd and remember.
Medication, probably, or the history of appointments and
procedures
List view as opposed to horizontal view of medications
taken. List view was more clear and easy to understand.
Te medical history information
5. WHAT FEATURE OR I NFORMATI ON WAS MOST VALUABLE TO YOU?
GROUP 1B GROUP 1A
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 160]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
Everything seemed valuable.
mail and calender system. why
use it I have and love gmail.
?
Cant think of anything. Perhaps Im not sure why I
would have to send my doctor medical records when
I could presumably give her permission to access them.
n/a
Everything seemed valuable.
mail and calender system. why use it I have and love gmail.
Nothing wasnt valuable.
Depends didnt use certain
sections, but probably the ones that
would take the most voluntary time
(daily exercise, food, etc.)
n/a
I think it was all valuable.
Depends didnt use certain sections, but probably
the ones that would take the most voluntary time (daily
exercise, food, etc.)
Data visualizations
Te calendarI keep my own master calendar with all the
information I need on it.
6. WHAT FEATURE OR I NFORMATI ON WAS LEAST VALUABLE TO YOU?
GROUP 1B GROUP 1A
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 161]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
...In places, I would really have liked
acknowledgment that the task had
been completed.
...a window or pop-up which
provided the most critical
information (immunizations
overdue, next appointment, refll
for medication).
Information hidden in the gear icon should be moved to
the middle of screen and given a clear label.
I missed back buttons, but I could get used to it. In places, I
would really have liked acknowledgment that the task had
been completed.
More explanations about the use of each screen at the top
of each screen
Maybe a window or pop-up which provided the most
critical information (immunizations overdue, next
appointment, refll for medication)
search
I made note as I went along.
Enabling the user to choose the
color scheme would be nice...
Te drop down box for module nav.
perhaps a comprehensive look at dietbut that might be
there or in the works and we just didnt work on it.
Enabling the user to choose the color scheme would be
nice. Having the option to choose a sound for notifcations
would also be nice.
No
Diary of side efects.
No.
7. WAS THERE ANYTHI NG YOU THOUGHT WAS MI SSI NG FROM THE SOFTWARE?
GROUP 1B GROUP 1A
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 162]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
COMMENTS
Convenience and one-stop
shopping
Ease of use; found interface
comforting; made me feel as though
I was in control. Dark color scheme
is comfortingnot clinical.
It keeps track many of my important
records and any new updates.
Te interface was difcult although
the concept of the site could be very
useful.
It seems to do what I would want it to do.
It keeps track many of my important records and any
new updates.
Te interface was difcult although the concept of the
site could be very useful.
I dont have very many doctors appointments at the
moment, but maybe in the future.
8. I F THI S SOFTWARE WERE AVAI LABLE TO YOU, HOW LI KELY WOULD YOU BE TO USE I T?
GROUP 1B GROUP 1A
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
(7) Very
Likely
6 5 4 3 2 (1) Very
unlikely.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
(7) Very
Likely
6 5 4 3 2 (1) Very
unlikely.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 163]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
COMMENTS
Makes it easy to keep all your
medical information/history in
one place.
Obviously the concern would be for security, but outside
of that it would be nice to have everything in one place,
especially medical history!
Id recommend it to someone that is sick and has lots of
stuf to keep track of
I think with continuous use,
the interface will make sense.
Simple enough for most people to work through.
Maybe not my mother, though.
it is efcient and its a great idea to keep all of this
information in an easy to locate place.
I think with continuous use, the interface will make
sense.
Its useful to have all your medical information in
one place.
9. HOW LI KELY WOULD YOU BE TO RECOMMEND THE SYSTEM TO A FRI END OR COLLEAGUE?
GROUP 1B GROUP 1A
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
(7) Very
Likely
6 5 4 3 2 (1) Very
unlikely.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
(7) Very
Likely
6 5 4 3 2 (1) Very
unlikely.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 164]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
I think the strength of a system like
this is in detecting patterns. it would
be great if it told me afer a few years:
you tend to have allergies in May, so
start taking allergy medication in
April to ward of the coming efects
Very interesting, glad to have the opportunity to
participate!
Although I understand most military personal and their
families are under 40, for those who arent (and arent
corrected well), the type might be a bit small and the place
to change it wasnt very obvious. On the whole, it was fun.
I loathe calling for an appointment.
Tis is a great app and the testers were very welcoming
and accommodating.
It was great. Tanks for letting me participate.
I think the strength of a system like this is in detecting
patterns. it would be great if it told me afer a few years:
you tend to have allergies in May, so start taking allergy
medication in April to ward of the coming efects
Great user testing and great interface.
...More options for customization
of the screen would also be nice,
such as the color, where diferent
categories of information can be
placed on a page on the screen, etc.
No thanks.
I think the overall appearance of the system can be
improved to make it more pleasing to look at. More options
for customization of the screen would also be nice, such as
the color, where diferent categories of information can be
placed on a page on the screen, etc.
No, thank you.
Brighter colors, not as monochromatic.
No.
10. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER FINAL THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS YOUD LIKE TO SHARE ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE?
GROUP 1B GROUP 1A
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 165]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
Exit Survey Results: Group 2
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 166]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
2. ON THE SCALE BELOW, HOW EASY OR DI FFI CULT DI D YOU FI ND USI NG THE SOFTWARE?
GROUP 2B GROUP 2A
3. WHAT PART OF THE TESTI NG DI D YOU FI ND WAS THE MOST CHALLENGI NG?
fnding some of the requested
information
Finding certain information input but that is quickly
learned afer use.
fnding some of the requested information
fnding calorie information and what items Id eaten.
Occasionally it was difcult to judge how best to
proceed with a task.
some questions required fnding the links that I found
difcult if not impossible to locate. Te smoking bit was
tough! also those food photos in the lower right
Navigating through recording results and setting goals.
fnding information...but once I got
used to the sofware, it was easy to
fgure out which is where.
Adding the weight on health board.
fnding information. information hierarchy is a bit lost.
but once I got used to the sofware, it was easy to fgure
out which is where.
fnding some editing functions.
I could not fnd the homepage icon so had to keep going
back to changing homepage set up to get back to that page.
adding the smoking taskit was not obvious where that
should be done.
Nothing was terribly difcult, but I suppose acclimating
to the overall organization of the interface.
GROUP 2B GROUP 2A

(7) Very
Likely
6 5 4 3 2 (1) Very
unlikely.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
(7) Very
Likely
6 5 4 3 2 (1) Very
unlikely.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 167]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
the icons were intuitive. Pretty
much you would expect to fnd
information based on the image
you saw on the screen.
Info input.
flling in information
the icons were intuitive. Pretty much you would expect to
fnd information based on the image you saw on the screen.
on tape
Using the cursor.
Reading/fnding information once
I knew where I was going
Adding weight training as a personal exercise.
data entry and fave buttons.
input information, except for cigarette smoking
general navigation. Te exercise section was very easy.
I ended up liking the nutritional section as well.
Reading/fnding information once I knew where
I was going
4. WHAT PART OF THE TESTI NG DI D YOU FI ND THE EASI EST?
GROUP 2B GROUP 2A
Te depot of health info on one
program.
Te depot of health info on one program.
tracking components
Monitoring how I was keeping within my calorie goals.
Being able to graph the weight changes.
Te food journal, the connection to dr. appts, the sense of
agency in monitoring my own health and nutrition
Physical Exercise information.
the ability to track everything and
having interaction with physicians
on an on-going basis
the widgets.
nutrition with the graphs and stuf. specially like the
pop-ups.
Vital history, diet and weight history, and exercise
performance
the ability to track everything and having interaction
with physicians on an on-going basis
tracking diet / exercise could be useful. I liked the goal
idea, to see how I was doing in general.
Probably the graphical tracking of various metrics (vital
signs, exercise, etc.)
5. WHAT FEATURE OR I NFORMATI ON WAS MOST VALUABLE TO YOU?
GROUP 2B GROUP 2A
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 168]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
6. WHAT FEATURE OR I NFORMATI ON WAS LEAST VALUABLE TO YOU?
GROUP 2B GROUP 2A
all very valuable
Not sure.
nothing in particular
Hard to tell since it was all new.
all very valuable
Nutritional Information.
some of the vital signs section. Since
I am not familiar with thinking about
myself in that...
no
none
some of the vital signs section. Since I am not familiar with
thinking about myself in that (bmi vs weight) it did not
make complete sense. Perhaps afer tracking it for a few
months, it will make more sense.
Nothing stands out among the stuf I used.
For a frst time user, a how-to on
how to navigate the system...
Not sure.
personalizations/allergy information
For a frst time user, a how-to on how to navigate the
system. But I know this was a test.
my photo! and my drs photos would be nice. Also a
bigger logon for the program
Perhaps a Help section, or faq section.
Quick links from the home page to
record meals or other activity...
Tere should be a quick link to
record these things...
no.
physicians recommendations isnt highlighted so much.
I think this should be more prominent, maybe in the form
of a notifcation or like a unread message/mailbox.
no
Quick links from the home page to record meals or other
activity. I will probably log in to record eating or exercise
several times a day. Tere should be a quick link to record
these things, instead of navigating a few pages.
Hard to say (didnt get to explore all available
functionality). But in the nutrition/food diary section it
might have been useful to be able to get more detailed
nutritional information on the foods entered than just calorie
count (this could be in the sofware but I didnt use it).
7. WAS THERE ANYTHI NG YOU THOUGHT WAS MI SSI NG FROM THE SOFTWARE?
GROUP 2B GROUP 2A
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 169]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
(7) Very
Likely
6 5 4 3 2 (1) Very
unlikely.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
(7) Very
Likely
6 5 4 3 2 (1) Very
unlikely.
COMMENTS
All in one sofware on health
and food!
I have difculty maintaining this
detail of information
Looks to be interesting and if my doctor could interact
with it I would use it more ofen.
I have difculty maintaining this detail of information
It stores my health info in one location. Ease of
communicating with health provider.
All in one sofware on health and food!
It would require much more attention to detail than
I would be able to provide.
Its a great way of monitoring
your health.
it is not something that I like
thinking about. It is a bit of a nanny
sofware...
Its a great way of monitoring your health.
it is not something that I like thinking about. It is a bit of
a nanny sofware. Tough I should try to pay attention to
it.
Tere are other systems available, in more convenient
forms to me (e.g. iPhone apps), that provide the
functionality Id probably fnd most useful (e.g. exercise/
diet tracking), and I dont use them.
Im in love with Nike+ sofware, unless this can top that,
8. I F THI S SOFTWARE WERE AVAI LABLE TO YOU, HOW LI KELY WOULD YOU BE TO USE I T?
GROUP 2B GROUP 2A
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 170]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
Excellent prototype.
overall feels pretty good, but some
features felt as though they should be
more personalized...
Need to change color scheme for more contrast.
overall feels pretty good, but some features felt as though
they should be more personalized, but instead led to
websites of generic information
When is this coming out! Tis was interesting.
Excellent prototype.
Sorry I am very exhausted! But very pleased to participate.
It is an intriguing program, in concept.
I think this would be great for
everyonegreat way to stay on top
of all health aspects. Only concern is
privacy.
At frst I was nervous but once I knew where things were,
it became more easier to understand.
check nike+ or nike training. maybe an app will be useful
too, for easy access.
I think this would be great for everyonegreat way to stay
on top of all health aspects. Only concern is privacy.
10. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER FINAL THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS YOUD LIKE TO SHARE ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE?
GROUP 2B GROUP 2A
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 171]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
IV. REFERENCES
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 172]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
REFERENCES
Bendersky D, and Kang J. Visual Dashboard & Heads-up
Display of Patient Conditions: Information Strategy
Volume (v9). New York: Parsons Institute for Informa-
tion Mapping, Te New School, February 2013.
Bendersky D, and Kang J. Visual Dashboard & Heads-up
Display of Patient Conditions: Engineering Volume (v9).
New York: Parsons Institute for Information Mapping,
Te New School, February 2013.
Goranson C and Kang J. Visual Dashboard & Heads-up
Display of Patient ConditionsAnnual Report:
1 November 201031 October 2011. New York: Parsons
Institute for Information Mapping, Te New School,
November 2011.
Goranson C. and Kang J. Visual Dashboard & Heads-up
Display of Patient ConditionsAnnual Report:
1 November 201131 October 2012. New York: Parsons
Institute for Information Mapping, Te New School,
November 2012.
Kang J, Yoshida S, Ina A. Te Visual Dashboard & Heads-
up Display of Patient Conditions: Product Requirement
Document (PRD) Volume (v7). New York: Parsons
Institute for Information Mapping, Te New School,
September 2012.
Kang J, Yoshida S, Limphongpand P, Yi A, and Hur S.
Visual Dashboard and Heads-up Display of Patient
Conditions: Detailed GUI Design Volume. Parsons
Institute for Information Mapping, Te New School,
New York. February 2013.
Schumacher, Robert M. and Lowry, Svetlana Z. Custom-
ized Common Industry Format Template for Electronic
Health Record Usability Testing (NISTIR 7742).
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
U.S. Department of Commerce. November 15, 2010.
Schumacher, Robert M. and Lowry, Svetlana Z. NIST
Guide to the Processes Approach for Improving the
Usability of Electronic Health Records (NISTIR 7741).
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
U.S. Department of Commerce. November 2010.
THE VISUAL DASHBOARD & HEADS-UP DISPLAY OF PATIENT CONDITIONS:
USABILITY TESTING RESULTS
PI I M RESEARCH
PUBLI SHED FEBRUARY 15, 2013
[ PAGE 173]
PIIM
2013 PARSONS INSTITUTE
FOR INFORMATION MAPPING
V. APPENDIX